Roll Call is reporting that the House “voted 228-205 to reject the financial sector bailout bill crafted over the weekend by a bipartisan group of House and Senate negotiators. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) all had urged Members to support the bill. But House Republicans rejected it by a 2-1 margin, and more than 90 Democrats voted no.”
voted
Peter Kirsanow is on fire today over on the Corner. Here are his remarks from blog post entitled “The Seminal Question Regarding Obama and Born-Alive”:
Even if one accepts any one of Obama’s (four and counting) explanations for his vote against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, his position remains problematic, if not untenable. Consider:
Obama sits through testimony that babies born alive after an unsuccessful abortion are left to die alone in a utility closet. The babies are provided neither comfort, care, nor sustenance during their brief lives. When this practice was brought to public attention horrified citizens petitioned their legislators to address the matter. Proposed legislation is drafted.
Obama examines the draft of the Born-Alive Act and declares it deficient. Obama maintains that he would vote for the legislation if it did not curtail or derogate extant abortion rights.
Remedying the alleged defect in the draft legislation is not a difficult task. It requires merely the insertion of a “neutrality clause” that says, in effect, ”this legislation won’t affect existing abortion rights.”
Obama, lecturer in constitutional law at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School, former Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review and undoubtedly the one most qualified in the entire Illinois state legislature to address the issue lifts not one finger to remedy the alleged defect in the draft.
Instead, when the draft is amended to include the neutrality language, Obama votes against it.
Obama is the agent of change and compassion. He can heal the planet and lower the oceans. By stating that he would’ve voted for the bill had it contained the neutrality clause, he conveys that he supports the principles of the Born-Alive Act. Yet he takes no action whatsoever to make it happen.
Therefore, even if we accept any one of Obama’s explanations regarding his vote against Born-Alive, we’re holding him to an incredibly low standard for someone who intends to lead the nation. If he supports the principle of Born-Alive, the question isn’t why he voted against it — the question should be, “Sen. Obama, given your education, skills and background why didn’t you take the relatively simple step of amending the draft so that the bill would work?” Isn’t that what we expect from a leader?
Obama voted “present” more than 100 times in the Illinois state legislature. Why did he rouse himself to vote “No” on this one?
Obama has found time to ponder the habeas rights of foreign terrorists but no time to ponder the rights of babies born alive? Is it that far above his pay grade?
